How to do the pros do it ?

[twocik23]

I've beat myself to death trying to figure this out on my own. I normally hire boom ops and don't really pay to much attention to the sound, giving that I'm paying them to do that part of the job. Long story short...

How do the pros get such great sound on film and when I hear smaller budget/no budget films, the sound doesn't quite hold up to the pros. Now don't get me wrong I've meant plenty of indy boom op guys that can pull really good sound, but more for interviews, commercial, etc..

We had this discussion once before (kind of a while ago) and our boom op at the time was telling us it had something to do with dv cameras can't record higher than 16 bits, dynamic range or something like that (I could be completely wrong, but I think that's what we talked about) ???


When I hear smaller budget films I hear flat, higher pitch vocals and on the larger budget films it's very deep, crisp, bassy (if that's even a word).



Anyone have a min to help explain ?



.

 

[finchy]

Well for me its a number of things...

Good quality kit, a good knowledge of how to operate a boom and also mix the sound and also good sound mixing in post and most of all, years of experience!

A knowledge of how sound works and how to prevent certain things that may ruin your sound is also vital but i guess that just comes with experience...


Tom

 

[Alex H.]

We had this discussion once before (kind of a while ago) and our boom op at the time was telling us it had something to do with dv cameras can't record higher than 16 bits, dynamic range or something like that (I could be completely wrong, but I think that's what we talked about) ???

Nonsense.

Higher-end cameras also record 16-bit, though newer rounds of higher-than-HD "digital film" cameras (like RED) can record 24-bit. Nonetheless, 16-bit audio is just fine. You listen to CDs, don't you?

Good audio starts with good mics. Not a good mic, but a selection of them... different mics for different applications. From there, it's the knowledge of how to swing them so that they are in the prime pickup spots for dialog with the best rejection of extraneous noise.

After that, it's a good, clean pre-amp that, ideally, is part of a quiet and well-built mixer. From there, a clean line-level feed to a camera, and external recorder, or both.

I'd be remiss if I didn't mention good headphones for on-set monitoring, and the awareness to monitor for imperfections. That also requires the knowledge of how to fix/avoid those imperfections.

Good gear comes with a decent investment. Everything else comes from years of experience... often learning by failing.

So good gear, knowledge, and experience.

 

[MattinSTL]

Honestly... I think more then anything it's the acoustics of the environment... and the boom to mouth distance. With indi productions... both of these issues are always taken for granted.

In addition to that... a lot of guys are using crappy mics with tinny sound. It's pretty common for people to have a $4K+ camera and a $100 shotgun... or a $10K+ camera... and an me66.

Finally... one thing that's just a hard fact... is that big productions get POST work on the audio as well.

But fortunately... there's no real reason that anybody with a DVX and an Oktava... or Rode NTG-1, 2, or 3... (or decent wireless w/ GOOD lav mic) etc. can't have that good... "thick" sound you're wanting.

Get serious about your acoustics... and close mic placement. MOST boom ops... MOST of them... boom too high... or have no real concept of what a mic can... and CAN'T do. I worked with a guy that set an 816 about 8' over talent (hidden in the trusses) and I thought... "dude... it's not a 'big ears' like they have for a football game"... and whatta'ya' know... a producer ran up to me in a panic... telling me to charge in with a boom to get what we weren't getting.

If you want a reasonable idea of the audio that you should be getting... compare your indi productions with reality TV... or any productions that are professional... yet "less refined". Don't compare YOUR audio... with "CSI" for example. Take Survivor... notice how everybody ALWAYS has either a bandanna... or hat... or SOMETHING... up around their neck or on their head? That's because there's a LAV in there... really close to the mouth, but hidden. Then on top of that... they're using 416/816... and booming SUPER close... yet out of the shot (of course)... but that mic is just outside the edge of your TV screen. Even when the people appear only a few feet away... the mic is even closer then the camera.

 

[Richard Crowley]

The big- budget, highly-produced films likely have a vanishingly small fraction of the original on-set recorded sound make it all the way through to the final mix. The SFX are produced separately and that nice, close "bassy" sound comes from the actor standing in a quiet ADR stage using a large-diameter condenser, much like a pop singer, etc. We have come to expect "perfect" sound even when our visual cues show an acoustic nightmare like a cave or a warehouse with an extra-wide shot.

 

[Rippie]

any adr facility worth a salt is going to use the same style (if not the same model) mic
as the production used to help with seamless adr, not studio mic's.

 

[Smifis]

That is ofcourse if you are going to be cutting from between the audio recorded on set, and the audio recorded in the studio.

I think about 80% of every film we watch has been dubbed or rather "improved".

 

[twocik23]

"Higher-end cameras also record 16-bit, though newer rounds of higher-than-HD "digital film" cameras (like RED) can record 24-bit. Nonetheless, 16-bit audio is just fine. You listen to CDs, don't you?"


Hmmm I see, yes even the higher end Panasonic HPX500 records at 16 bit I know, but wasn't sure if the pro were using some sort of external recorder that might have that option.




"But fortunately... there's no real reason that anybody with a DVX and an Oktava... or Rode NTG-1, 2, or 3... (or decent wireless w/ GOOD lav mic) etc. can't have that good... "thick" sound you're wanting."


Yes I own the Oktava, problems is I'm not a great sound guy. I've been able to get decent sound out of it just playing around with it, but needs to be pretty close to the subjects mouth.





So what kind of basic setup would a pro be using on one of these features (mics, mixer, etc..) ? I've got about $2800 for a kit, what do you recommend ?


Any tutors or DVDs you guys can recommend that might help us understand audio a little better? We've read the Keystone audio page and it helped out alot, but would be better if someone was speaking showing actually room setups, diagrams, etc..


.

 

[Noiz2]

The big- budget, highly-produced films likely have a vanishingly small fraction of the original on-set recorded sound make it all the way through to the final mix. The SFX are produced separately and that nice, close "bassy" sound comes from the actor standing in a quiet ADR stage using a large-diameter condenser, much like a pop singer, etc. We have come to expect "perfect" sound even when our visual cues show an acoustic nightmare like a cave or a warehouse with an extra-wide shot.

Actually big budget films use a LOT less ADR than people think. Most use hardly any and even really big ones might use ~~30%, they often shoot a lot more ADR but they don't actually use that much. And as Ripper mentioned the point of ADR is to sound like it was recorded on set, so even if a big condenser was used in the studio it's going to be processed to sound like whatever mic was on the set.

For dialog sound it starts with good people who know how to get the best out of the situation. Then it goes to a team who message those tracks and then to mixers who compress, noise reduce and polish. So People, Money and Time, three things indi's are almost always short on. Everything other than dialog is created in post. There is a sticky that goes into post more but the same three ingredients.

As a low budget producer/ director you can control the time, so give your self a LOT. You can also hire people who know what they are doing and the cost:quality ratio has gotten much more favorable. So you can do it but you need to keep the quality up from the start. One reason indi dialog may sound thin is the amount of noise reduction required to clean up bad production sound. But it also has to do with what tools are being used and who's using them.

Also look at where you spend your money. A big budget film can have the helicopter shot and an experienced mixer, an indi probably has to choose. Choose a quality crew FIRST then see what you have left over for specialty stuff. A side benefit is that with an experienced crew they may know a way to get that trick shot done in your budget.

 

[Noiz2]

That is ofcourse if you are going to be cutting from between the audio recorded on set, and the audio recorded in the studio.

I think about 80% of every film we watch has been dubbed or rather "improved".

As I mentioned VERY few films will even cross the 30% mark and if you take out the big action films the number would be even lower. If by "improved" you mean edited mixed and polished, the the number is 100%.

But you do make one good point. I usually recommend with low budget films that if you ADR one actor you do the whole scene. If you don't have the $$$ to throw at ADR it's a lot easier to make it fit if it's all one or the other.

 

[Noiz2]

So what kind of basic setup would a pro be using on one of these features (mics, mixer, etc..) ? I've got about $2800 for a kit, what do you recommend ?

Well their cart would come in more in the $50K - $60K range. But owning the fastest car in the world doesn't make you a good race car driver. If you want to do production sound find someone who does it well in your area and volunteer to help out on the next indi project they do. Some experience is worth a lot more than a new box.

 

[Blackout]

The biggest issue that causes the bad sound you are talking about is mic and preamp.
If you are running a $100 mic into a cameras built in pre amp, it's going to sound pretty lame, no matter how good your boom placement and skill. The preamps on most camcorders make things sound like dull cardboard. Plug a high end mic like a sanken cs3e or even old sein 416 into a sound devices mixer / recorder and take a listen to that through sony 7506 or v6 headphones, and you are in for the sound you are talking about.

of course you need that high end equipment to be used by skilled pros on top of that, but you need that equipment and skilled pros should know to have a good kit.

I have tried to get by with lower quality stuff and that is exactly what you do, get by, you can hear things, but it doesn't sound anything like that hollywood sound you are talking about.

 

[Richard Crowley]

any adr facility worth a salt is going to use the same style (if not the same model) mic
as the production used to help with seamless adr, not studio mic's.

Indeed. That is the recommendation, and the most logical thing to do, and perhaps comon practice.

But I see (and hear) a very noticable quantity of production on TV (I don't see film in theatres as much anymore) where the sound is nice and crisp and full, but the visual looks like it would have been very unlikely that I am hearing live sync sound, or recorded with the kind of lav or shotgun typically used in field production. I think we have been conditioned to expect "perfect" sound even in unlikely visual contexts.

In much the same way that we expect gunfire to sound like we have come to expect hearing it in the movies. How many times have you seen a witness interviewed on the TV news who said "it didn't sound like gunfire, it sounded like firecrackers going off."

We have come to expexct what the sound designers have created for us to hear rather than what actually happens in the Real World. We expect gunfire to be echoey and even ricochet, even in a forest or a desert. We have come to expect to hear explosions in outer space (where the vacuum would prevent any actual sound from carrying) etc, etc.

 

[Blackout]

So what kind of basic setup would a pro be using on one of these features (mics, mixer, etc..) ? I've got about $2800 for a kit, what do you recommend ?

.

Sanken CS-3e mic $1400.00
Sound Devices MixPre mixer $600.00
Tascam HD-P2 recorder. $800


Boom there you go, right at your budget and I promise you the above combo produces amazing sound. The Sanken is an awesome mic, the Tascam has an awesome D/A convertor but not so great pre-amps, but it doesn't matter because you will be using the sound devices mixpre preamps which sound phenominal.

Run that into your Tascam, and you have a basic kit to record dialog and foley for film that will produce some amazing results as your skill improves.

add some high end wireless lavs and move up to a bigger mixer later... you also will of course need a poll and shock mount but you can configure that in a lot of different ways.

 

[Gohanto]

As I mentioned VERY few films will even cross the 30% mark and if you take out the big action films the number would be even lower. If by "improved" you mean edited mixed and polished, the the number is 100%.

Plus even some big budget action films don't use much ADR if the director has sound as a priority. During some interviews with Richard King he talked about how there was almost no ADR lines in Dark Knight because the sets were made quiet and wild lines were always gotten on the spot if the recording was at all questionable.

Sanken CS-3e mic $1400.00
Sound Devices MixPre mixer $600.00
Tascam HD-P2 recorder. $800


Boom there you go, right at your budget and I promise you the above combo produces amazing sound. The Sanken is an awesome mic, the Tascam has an awesome D/A convertor but not so great pre-amps, but it doesn't matter because you will be using the sound devices mixpre preamps which sound phenominal.

Run that into your Tascam, and you have a basic kit to record dialog and foley for film that will produce some amazing results as your skill improves.

I agree with the kit for production sound, but for Foley you may want to try a mic with a lower noise floor.

 

[telcoman]

Some good things have already been mentioned.

I would like to add that in the realm of indie films ( less than $100,000), your budget still hurts your sound even if you hire a good sound guy or one volunteers for you.

Why? Because generally you rely on locations you can get for free or cheap. A decent cardiod can reject off axis sounds but rejection is NOT the same as eliminating them. If you get a location that's 150' off of an airport, you are going to get airplane sounds in your mix.

Do yourself a favor and allow your sound guy to get you good sound by making sure your location is quiet or at the very least the ambient is something you can live with.

P.S. Big budgets also allow for staff to lock down a street, walkway etc, generally low budgets, not so much.

 

[Noiz2]

Telcoman, I would add a zero to that number if your planning on shutting down streets, but a good point. Another reason why an experienced mixer trumps an expensive box. I know it's completely counter to todays marketing but it's never been more true that "It's not the tool, it's what you do with it". No box or collection of boxes is going to get you "Hollywood sound". It's the work flow that gets that sound. Lots of skilled professionals working with good tools that they know how to use and the time to use them. The average min. time in audio post for a feature is 10-15 Manhours per screen minute plus 3-6 weeks of mixing. If you budget one person for three weeks to finish your low budget feature it really doesn't mater what boxes you used you will have a "thin indi sound". You'll be lucky if you get a decent dialog pass let alone all the rest that fils out the sound track. To fill the gaping holes you will be forced to do what everyone else does and slather music all over the place so it doesn't sound like an old 16mm indi, and that will make it sound like a modern indi.

 

[Glen Trew]

The big- budget, highly-produced films likely have a vanishingly small fraction of the original on-set recorded sound make it all the way through to the final mix. The SFX are produced separately and that nice, close "bassy" sound comes from the actor standing in a quiet ADR stage using a large-diameter condenser, much like a pop singer, etc. We have come to expect "perfect" sound even when our visual cues show an acoustic nightmare like a cave or a warehouse with an extra-wide shot.

Richard, I'll have to challenge your statement about the small amount of original dialog tracks being used in films and TV production. If anything, I think it's on the increase. With the exception of scenes that require noisy effects (wind machines, explosions, stunt cues, etc), the vast majority of dialog is from original tracks.

Further, when ADR is done, most ADR facilities I am aware of use the same type of microphone used on the set (some insist on using the very same model), which is usually not a large diaphragm condenser. Sadly, the close sound that many have gotten used to is due to wireless lav mics; not because the sound is preferred but because they are cheaper, faster, and easier to use.

While replacing dialog is easier to do better than in past decades, modern production sound technology makes it more possible to get preferred original tracks on the set. Modern nonlinear multitrack recorders make it possible to record a mix plus isolated microphones for each actor talking, as well as isolated boom mics, making it less likely that dialog replacement is necessary. The reliability and sonic quality of modern wireless mic systems that we record onto these tracks also increases the likelihood that the production tracks can and will be used.

On a recent movie that I was the production mixer, "Hannah Montana, The Movie", I am very aware of the lines (words, really) of dialog that were replaced in this film, and there were very few. This is the case even though not one scene of this movie was shot on a proper sound stage, and the locations were very challenging. Post-production mixers definitely help (including, thankfully, with genny noise removal), but for the most part, the basic quality of the dialog tracks are just like i remembered them (confirmed by the original backup I have on my desk).

To address the original poster's question, the difference between the higher quality dialog production sound tracks and the less desirable sound quality often associated with lower level production, has much more to do with the experience of the production sound mixer and less to do with the equipment they use. This experience is responsible for the best use of available equipment (mic placement, mic mixing, equipment alignment, and levels), when to be concerned about certain acoustical factors (and when not to be) and what to do about them... and the list goes on. But choices for specific models of equipment is towards the end of the list of things that have a significant impact on the quality of production sound.

Glen Trew

 

[unclebob6958]

As an audio post sound editor/designer whose niche market is indie film I must reaffirm what has been said by Noiz, Glen and everyone else.

My biggest question for the OP is why do you want to purchase a sound kit in the first place. I know that DIY and owning all of the gear yourself is very much in vogue these days, but why not budget properly for an experienced production sound crew?

One error that many indie filmmakers (and not a few "Hollywood" types) consistently commit is that they scout locations for their look but never consider how the location sounds. One reason that the dialog ends up sounding so thin is that extraneous noise from these poorly selected locations occupies many of the same frequency ranges as the human voice, so when you attenuate the noise you thin out the dialog.

But the biggest error is that they do not plan anything about the sound of their film until it gets into post, by which time it is much too late. Great sound starts in pre-production. Your characters and story take place in a sonic world as much as a visual one. Thinking about your projects "soundscape" will complement your shot list. As an example - I worked on a short recently where the director wanted an "ominous, menacing" machine noise for a scene taking place in a factory. There was no visual reference for the "machine" so I was unable to give the sound any meaningful character; it became an annoying drone without purpose and any "hard" sounds to enhance it were perceived as "what the hell was that?", a distraction rather than an additional source of menace. A shot of the machine would have established the sound and allowed me to "play" with it for greater affect.

Every dollar and minute you spend on production sound will save you at least ten in audio post; no extensive production sound clean-up and no unneeded ADR with talent inexperienced with the process. It also allows you to be much more subtle with the sound design. Clean, present dialog allows the Foley to be mixed for greatest effect; with noisy production sound by the time it is mixed loud enough to be heard it becomes cartoonish.

I recently read an article about Tarantino and Inglourious Basterds in Post magazine, and in the cover article re-recording mixer of "Inglourious Basterds" Mike Minkler said:

"Quentin is very astute, careful and cognizant of sound at all times. He is one of the rare directors who will actually shoot a take again based solely on sound. Most people would choose to fix something in post production rather than the shoot, not only for audio but for visuals too. But, not Quentin. He'll never ADR the dialog...

Not only will Quentin retake something due to the sound, but when they are setting up the shots he will allow lights and cameras to be moved in order to reduce noises on the set. For example, he may say 'No you cannot use that light because it is humming too much.'"


Would that some of my clients follow this philosophy!

 

[dre83]

Sound is something... special... I think I've said this already milion times and I will repeat it (well not here )

During record...a very stupid example... 4 persons, talking with each other...depending on the "speed" of there respones you need 2 booms... When you have 2 X 2 people standing 2 feet from eachother, you need 2 booms... When someone is turning his head while speaking... you have to try to follow, or lavalier, or 2nd boom...

Actually a 2nd boomer can help a lot with "time panic".

To give some examples....